Economist Debates adapt the Oxford style of debating to an online forum. The format was made famous by the 186-year-old Oxford Union and has been practised by heads of state, prominent intellectuals and galvanising figures from across the cultural spectrum. It revolves around an assertion that is defended on one side (the "proposer") and assailed on another (the "opposition") in a contest hosted and overseen by a moderator. Each side has three chances to persuade readers: opening, rebuttal and closing.

In Economist Debates, proposer and opposition each consist of a single speaker, experts in the issue at hand. We also invite featured guests to comment on the debate, not to take sides, but to provide context and informed perspective on the subject.

Those attending an Oxford-style debate participate in two ways: by voting to determine the debate's winner and by addressing comments to the moderator. The same holds here. As a reader, you are encouraged to vote. As long as the debate is open, you may change your vote as many times as you change your mind. And you are encouraged to air your own views by sending comments to the moderator. These should be relevant to the motion, the speakers' statements or the observations of featured guests. And they must be addressed directly to the moderator, who will single out the most compelling for discussion by the speakers.

Post-debate

What do you think?

85%

voted yes

15%

voted no

This debate has finished. Voting is now closed.

Voting at a glance

50%

82%

18%

85%

15%

85%

15%

86%

14%

86%

14%

86%

14%

86%

14%

86%

14%

86%

14%

85%

15%

DAY

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

Representing the sides

Yes

Andrew Miller

ANDREW MILLER Labour MP and Chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee

Andrew Miller has been a member of Parliament since 1992, representing Ellesmere Port and Neston. He was elected by the House of Commons to chair the science and technology committee in 2010. At that time he also became chair of the oldest all-party group, the parliamentary and scientific committee. His began his career as a technician in geology at Portsmouth Polytechnic, where he developed and ran an XRF (x-ray fluorescence) and XRD (x-ray diffraction) laboratory. In 1977 he moved into industrial relations after a year at the London School of Economics, becoming an official for the ASTMS (Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs—now part of the Unite union) where he represented many scientists and engineers working in leading companies.

Labour MP and Chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee

Private funders of research will rarely be persuaded to put the necessary money into the long-term, low-return applied research that was crucial to the early development of space technology or future energy potential such as advanced battery technology.

Terence Kealey trained initially in medicine at Barts Hospital, London, and then obtained his DPhil in biochemistry at Oxford University. He lectured for many years in clinical biochemistry at Cambridge University, where his research focused on the cell biology of human skin. During his career he developed an interest in the economics of science, publishing in 1996 his book "The Economic Laws of Scientific Research", which argued that governments did not need to fund research, and in 2008 "Sex, Science and Profits", which argued that science is not organised as a public good but, rather, as an "invisible college" good. Since 2001 he has been the vice-chancellor (aka president or rector) of the University of Buckingham, which is the only university in Britain to be independent of direct government funding.

Vice Chancellor, University of Buckingham

The OECD has speculated that, when governments fund research, they might only displace or crowd out its private funding. Companies fund their own research, so, when governments fund it, companies may simply withdraw their own money.

About this debate

If there is one thing that has politicians of all stripes nodding approvingly, it is promoting innovation. Even in these straitened times governments are keen on pouring money into research with direct practical relevance. Unravelling the mysteries of the universe, as was the case with the long-awaited discovery of the Higgs boson, is all very well, they hear some voters say, but it hardly impinges on people's everyday lives. But should politicians be funnelling taxpayers' money into applied-research projects? Some of these will be spun off into successful enterprises, potentially benefiting the public thanks to the technological advances they develop. Plenty of others will flounder, yielding no practical benefits. Perhaps the task of picking winners in applied research ought to be left to the private sector.